networks-list-alerts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential pagination, error behavior, or rate limits. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not detailed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence plus a parenthetical tag. Every part is meaningful and there is no waste. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It identifies the action, resource, and scope. It could benefit from mentioning the return type (e.g., list of alert objects) but the name and verb imply a list.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema documentation coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond stating the resource (global alerts). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (Return), the resource (global alerts), and the scope (on this network). The '(read-only)' label adds clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list different resources (clients, devices, etc.).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many sibling tools, but the description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to other alert-related tools. Usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.